The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Poland has acted in ways that she believes is in her best national interest. No more, no less. Obviously Poland has acted in a supportive way for the US on e.g. Iraq, because she thought she would get something in return. Sweden did the same thing on Afghanistan. This does not impair our sovereignty. Indeed, it's quite the opposite - a negotiaton or trade situation between two sovereign powers.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Poland's modus operandi is simple: annoy Russia. That's about all it wants to do with sovereignty.
A vassal or feudatory is a person who has entered into a mutual obligation to a lord or monarch in the context of the feudal system in medieval Europe. The obligations often included military support and mutual protection, in exchange for certain privileges, usually including the grant of land held as a fiefdom. The term can be applied to similar arrangements in other feudal societies. In contrast, a fidelity, or fidelitas, was a sworn loyalty, subject to the king.
It is perfectly clear, historically speaking, that Poland (and other Visegrad countries) felt an imperative need for military protection from any future domination from the east. That is the basis for Poland's voluntary vassal status with respect to the US. Being a vassal means you contribute troops to your overlord's military adventures, as you describe, in return for his military protection. Being militarily dependent on another country is obviously a partial renouncement of sovereignty, as is the renouncement of an independent foreign policy.
I'm not denying that the Soviet bloc vassal status was much deeper, because it was constrained and because it implied strong control of internal affairs in Poland.
The notion of absolute national sovereignty is a recent concept, and like most ideals, is very unevenly applied.
It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II
More importantly the whole linked comment is distorted and ahistorical. In 1945 the communists did not rule Bulgaria; the country was ruled by the antifascist Fatherland Front, a broad coalition dominated by the Communists, and not unlike every liberated country in Europe. Even more importantly, Bulgaria was an Axis ally actively involved in the war, the Holocaust, and the looting of the occupied Greece and Macedonia. The political life of the country since the beginning of the 1930s was single-handedly managed by the king who suspended the Constitution; every subsequent parliament and government ministers were personally hand-picked by the palace. Therefore it is not exactly suprising that after the FF took power there were prosecutions of the former elite.
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 26 4 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 25
by gmoke - Nov 19 6 comments
by Oui - Nov 20 16 comments
by Oui - Dec 45 comments
by Oui - Dec 31 comment
by Oui - Nov 305 comments
by gmoke - Nov 30
by Oui - Nov 26
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 264 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 25
by Oui - Nov 2016 comments
by Oui - Nov 193 comments
by Oui - Nov 1911 comments
by gmoke - Nov 196 comments
by Oui - Nov 1711 comments
by Oui - Nov 1431 comments
by Oui - Nov 1316 comments
by Oui - Nov 107 comments
by Oui - Nov 830 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 781 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 711 comments
by Oui - Nov 697 comments
by Cat - Oct 3180 comments